"Gravity is the prime cause for stellar evolution, in a random universe when matter come together the combined affect of gravity increases exponentially. Once started it's unstoppable."

A: Big bang=everything moving away from each other, not getting closer together.
B: How would gravity alone form a star? As the gas gets closer together the heat increases as does the friction and causes it to repel away from each other.

chance:relativity re EH is for the observer, time marches on for the rest of the universe, someone passing through an EH will be crushed in very short order (even if it does not appear so).

Time does march on, albeit relatively much faster away from the EH then at it.

chance:No evidence for White holes that IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m aware off (these being philosophic solutions for the steady state model if memory serves).

There isn't any evidence for the wood-factory that burned down 44 years ago in my home-town either. For those who don't understand , a white hole is a black hole in reverse. Instead of matter and energy being absorbed it is spewed out. That means once all the matter & energy are released the white hole goes bye-bye.This is not a steady state model solution.

chance:Ã¢â‚¬Å“Starlight and TimeÃ¢â‚¬Â has some serious flaws, and is more to do with postulation not investigation.

Any specifics? Is it more or less flawed then the current theory of evolution?

"Gravity is the prime cause for stellar evolution, in a random universe when matter come together the combined affect of gravity increases exponentially. Once started it's unstoppable."

A: Big bang=everything moving away from each other, not getting closer together.B: How would gravity alone form a star? As the gas gets closer together the heat increases as does the friction and causes it to repel away from each other.

A. The early stages of the big bang are mass less (radiation only). Newtonian mathematics an objet in motion will stay that way until forced to change, the universe is still expanding.

B. Gravity is stronger than radiation! as the star evolves things balance out as the heat holds the star apart, but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a loosing battel, eventually gravity wins, no contest.

Any specifics? Is it more or less flawed then the current theory of evolution?

Central to Humphries claims are that the speed of light has changed dramatically, if so how can supernova or other time dependant phenomena, be observed to be happening the same way at different distances, surly the more distant the faster they should appear to explode, yes?

Humphries also postulate we are in some sort of local black hole or gravity well, let me assure you that if this were so you would not be reading these words now. For time dilation (IAW general relativity) one must be under severe gravitational influence, and unless you are going to invoke the divine, the earth would not survive such an encounter.

For a very thorough critique of Starlight and Time see this reference LINKIn which it goes into detail over bound and unbound universes and the calculation in references, which frankly even after reading it, is out of my depth.

"A. The early stages of the big bang are mass less (radiation only). Newtonian mathematics an objet in motion will stay that way until forced to change, the universe is still expanding."

Is radiation an OBJECT?

"B. Gravity is stronger than radiation! as the star evolves things balance out as the heat holds the star apart, but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a loosing battel, eventually gravity wins, no contest."

? The gravity of what?

"chance:
No evidence for White holes that IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m aware off (these being philosophic solutions for the steady state model if memory serves)."

I doubt the existance of black holes AND white holes, along with antimatter. They all make major assumptions that cannot be tested. For instance, a black hole assumes that light is affected by gravity. Antimatter, black holes etc. seem to be a last resort type of way for the big bang believers to explain why all the material isn't evenly distributed throughout the universe. But again, that's just my opinion.

A. The early stages of the big bang are mass less (radiation only). Newtonian mathematics an objet in motion will stay that way until forced to change, the universe is still expanding."

Is radiation an OBJECT?

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand the question.

B. Gravity is stronger than radiation! as the star evolves things balance out as the heat holds the star apart, but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a loosing battel, eventually gravity wins, no contest."

? The gravity of what?

The gravitational pull of the Star.

chance> No evidence for White holes that IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m aware off (these being philosophic solutions for the steady state model if memory serves)."

I doubt the existance of black holes AND white holes, along with antimatter. They all make major assumptions that cannot be tested. For instance, a black hole assumes that light is affected by gravity. Antimatter, black holes etc. seem to be a last resort type of way for the big bang believers to explain why all the material isn't evenly distributed throughout the universe. But again, that's just my opinion.

There is strong evidence for the existence of Black Holes both observational (Cygnus X-1) and mathematical.

Light is affect by gravity, this has been measured and confirmed, absolutely no doubt about it.

Antimatter (depending on your definition) is currently under investigation, there is evidence that antimatter can be created in a cyclotron for a few milliseconds.

I am not sure what you mean by these things being required to explain why material is not evenly distributed. What do you think the consequences of a big bang should look like?

I'm getting circular reasoning here. You start with a "big bang" which would be as you say, radiation only at first. So here you have radiation flowing away from a central point. I then ask you by what means a star would form, and you say gravity. I say the gravity of what? You say, of the star! Think about it.

"What do you think the consequences of a big bang should look like?"

I would think everything would be evenly distributed, and everything spinning in the same direction.

Indeed, but I seriously doubt any new evidence will give wildly differing results from what we have already, hmmmm is 11 to 20 billion wildly different

11 to 20 billion is wildly different. Try to comprehend living just a thousand years.

What you are proposing is not science in the true sense of the word, the unknown remains unknown there is no need to give a definitive answer, one can postulate for sure, but if one categorically says Ã¢â‚¬Å“God did this or thatÃ¢â‚¬Â and subsequent findings later on actually find a materialist explanation, what then?

So science is not into searching all possibilities? Only the ones that support current views? You would have to admit that science searching and finding anything that supports God would rock the science world. And I believe is the reason they never will. They are actually afraid of finding something they can't explain. Like creating matter by sound. It expalins how God spoke things into existence. But will science apply it to that? Nope. In fact, I doubt it will be explored any further because of what they may find, that would go into a direction, that could disprove all that they have worked so hard to try and prove already.

I'm getting circular reasoning here. You start with a "big bang" which would be as you say, radiation only at first. So here you have radiation flowing away from a central point. I then ask you by what means a star would form, and you say gravity. I say the gravity of what? You say, of the star! Think about it.

Apologies, I missed a step (it would help a little if you become more familiar with the big bang), I assumed that you would have known that, during the expansion there is a point in time where radiation becomes matter (E=MC2 and all that).

"What do you think the consequences of a big bang should look like?"

I would think everything would be evenly distributed, and everything spinning in the same direction.

Why would you think that? Have you ever seen an explosion where that is the norm? Just one little imperfection from the starting point will trigger unevenness.

There is also the question of scale Ã¢â‚¬â€œ one could look at the universe and say Ã¢â‚¬Å“on the very very large scale, the universe is uniform, yes?

(chance @ Jun 29 2005, 05:17 PM) Indeed, but I seriously doubt any new evidence will give wildly differing results from what we have already, hmmmm is 11 to 20 billion wildly different

11 to 20 billion is wildly different. Try to comprehend living just a thousand years.

It is and it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. What the 11 to 20 is really telling us is the upper and lower limits of current knowledge (or differing hypothesise), itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s like the algebra equations they gave us at school, e.g solve X + Y where X = 4 and Y = 7 answer is 11, change the variables to X = 9 and Y = 11 and you get 20. Because we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know X and Y exactly, you get these widely differing results. You may think that because science canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t give is a better approximation than that, it is some how flawed, but in reality it is itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s strength that it give direction to find a better answer.

chance> What you are proposing is not science in the true sense of the word, the unknown remains unknown there is no need to give a definitive answer, one can postulate for sure, but if one categorically says Ã¢â‚¬Å“God did this or thatÃ¢â‚¬Â and subsequent findings later on actually find a materialist explanation, what then?

So science is not into searching all possibilities? Only the ones that support current views? You would have to admit that science searching and finding anything that supports God would rock the science world. And I believe is the reason they never will. They are actually afraid of finding something they can't explain. Like creating matter by sound. It expalins how God spoke things into existence. But will science apply it to that? Nope. In fact, I doubt it will be explored any further because of what they may find, that would go into a direction, that could disprove all that they have worked so hard to try and prove already.

Science can investigate a supernatural claim if there is evidence to work with, science can for example prove that there is no paranormal forces acting in the areas of Ã¢â‚¬Ëœspoon bendingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (i.e. Uri Geller), Astrology, Homoeopathy, water divining, etc. The difficulty is in categorically stating that a phenomena is an act or god or it is natural, how can one tell with certainty and how would one eliminate the natural especially if itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a new area of research. The default position is natural, that is the only workable solution to allow science to progress.

Finding evidence of god certainly would rock the world and not just the scientific one!

Finding things science canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t explain (immediately) is to be expected, it is often said that for every new answer, ten more questions are raised.

I am sceptical of creating matter from sound, as sound travels through a medium (air, water, solid). I would need to have a link to read to understand this claim. But I think if there is merit in the claim a Nobel prize would be in order for the scientist proving such.

I should probably clarify this. Whenever creationists use a certain theory or idea from the secular world to formulate a certain model, such as catastrophic plate tectonics or white hole cosmology (based off of the theory of relativity), I have my doubts in that particular model, in light of 1 Cor 1:19-20: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?Ã¢â‚¬Â

But let me also make it clear I believe Humphreys and Baumgardner are otherwise outstanding scientists, and have made many great contributions to the creation movement.

Science can investigate a supernatural claim if there is evidence to work with, science can for example prove that there is no paranormal forces acting in the areas of Ã¢â‚¬Ëœspoon bendingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (i.e. Uri Geller), Astrology, Homoeopathy, water divining, etc. The difficulty is in categorically stating that a phenomena is an act or god or it is natural, how can one tell with certainty and how would one eliminate the natural especially if itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a new area of research. The default position is natural, that is the only workable solution to allow science to progress.

Finding evidence of god certainly would rock the world and not just the scientific one!

Finding things science canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t explain (immediately) is to be expected, it is often said that for every new answer, ten more questions are raised.

I am sceptical of creating matter from sound, as sound travels through a medium (air, water, solid). I would need to have a link to read to understand this claim. But I think if there is merit in the claim a Nobel prize would be in order for the scientist proving such.

Easier to imagine if you think of the situation in reverse, stat with a lump of iron, as you heat it, it starts to glow, then melt, then vaporise, then the atoms breakdown to there atomic components, then these in turn break down to radiation, E=M

B: Let's say that somehow the radiation does turn into matter, you still have the same problem, everything is getting farther apart.

On the grand scale everything is indeed still getting further apart, it only when you drop the scale that you find clumping (galaxies).

"Easier to imagine if you think of the situation in reverse, stat with a lump of iron, as you heat it, it starts to glow, then melt, then vaporise, then the atoms breakdown to there atomic components, then these in turn break down to radiation, E=M"

Yes, it is easy to imagine that because it is DECAYING, breaking apart, losing order. I find it much harder to imagine how radiation could itself ADVANCE to form matter.

"On the grand scale everything is indeed still getting further apart, it only when you drop the scale that you find clumping (galaxies)."

Are you proposing that the pieces that blew off from the big bang were therefore intact, and some were big and some were small? Ie: Earth, Sun, Jupiter, etc. Or were they trillions of tiny particles which would make sense because the thing that exploded (expanded) was 100th- the size of a proton?

chance> Easier to imagine if you think of the situation in reverse, start with a lump of iron, as you heat it, it starts to glow, then melt, then vaporise, then the atoms breakdown to there atomic components, then these in turn break down to radiation, E=M"

Yes, it is easy to imagine that because it is DECAYING, breaking apart, losing order. I find it much harder to imagine how radiation could itself ADVANCE to form matter.

No it's not decaying, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just Pressure/Temperature driven, the only point of the analogy was to make it easier to understand. Put cold water in a glass, see the condensation form on the outside, is a similar analogy (this time in the correct direction). E=MC2 is well proven in this area, both mathematically, observationally and experimentally, if itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a difficult concept, do some reading on the matter there is a mountain of information available.

On the grand scale everything is indeed still getting further apart, it only when you drop the scale that you find clumping (galaxies)."

Are you proposing that the pieces that blew off from the big bang were therefore intact, and some were big and some were small? Ie: Earth, Sun, Jupiter, etc. Or were they trillions of tiny particles which would make sense because the thing that exploded (expanded) was 100th- the size of a proton?

The second (my italics) is more correct. P.S. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see how you get Ã¢â‚¬Å“pieces that blew off from the big bangÃ¢â‚¬Â from what I said.

Matter condenses? The analogy of water condensing on a glass doesn't work either. You're starting with water in the air, and going to water on a glass. You're talking about radiation to matter here.

That is the purpose of an analogy, to use a example that is known to demonstrate a concept that is unknown. Note that I italicised the word Ã¢â‚¬ËœcondensesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ specifically in an effort that it should not be taken literally.

Water is changing its state from a gas (aerosol) to liquid via a reduction of heat.Energy is changing its state from radiation to partials via a reduction of heat. The fundamental principle is EinsteinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s E=MC2, i.e. energy and matter are one and the same, just in a different state.